PERFECTO S. FLORESCA, in his own behalf and on behalf of the minors, et. al. vs.

PHILEX MINING
CORPORATION, et. al.
GR No. L-30642 | April 30, 1985
Ponente: J. Makasiar

FACTS: Petitioners are the heirs of the deceased employees of Philex Mining Corporation (PMC),
who,while working at its copper mines underground at Tuba, Benguet, died as a result of the cave-inthat
buried them in the tunnels of the mine. The complaint alleges that Philex, in violation ofgovernment
rules and regulations, negligently and deliberately failed to take the requiredprecautions for the
protection of the lives of its men working underground. A motion to dismiss was filed by Philex alleging
that the causes of action of petitioners based onan industrial accident are covered by the provisions of
the Worker’s Compensation Act (Act 3428,as amended by RA 772) and that the CFI has no jurisdiction
over the case. Petitioners filed an opposition to the said motion to dismiss claiming that the causes of
action arenot based on the provisions of the WCA but on the provisions of the Civil Code allowing the
awardof actual, moral, and exemplary damages. CFI dismissed the case on the ground that it falls within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Worker’s Compensation Commission. Said commission has sole
jurisdiction over damage claims for workconnected deaths, irrespective of whether or not the employer
was negligent. Hence, the petitionwith the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the action of an injured employee or that of his heirs in case of death under theWorkmen ’s
Compensation Act is exclusive, selective, or cumulative, meaning, whether they have a rightof selection
or choice of action between availing of the worker’s right under the Workmen’sCompensation Act and
suing in the regular courts under the Civil Code for higher damages by virtue of negligence or fault.

HELD:
The trial court's order of dismissal is hereby reversed and set aside and the case is remanded to itfor
further proceedings. Should a greater amount of damages be decreed in favor of herein petitioners,the
payments already made to them pursuant to the workmen's compensation act shall be deducted. No
costs The Court held that notwithstanding the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, theheirs
of the employees may still file an action for damages against Philex for negligence under theCivil Code.
This is because the rationale in awarding compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act differs
from that in giving damages under the Civil Code 2. The Court also justified that it is not legislating in its
decision, and is merely interpreting theWorkmen’s Compensation Act in light of the constitutional policy
on protecting labor and Article 10 of the Civil Code which states that “in case of doubt in the
interpretation or application oflaws it is presumed that the law making body intended right and justice
to prevail.